Protest of agency’s decision to reject proposal as nonresponsive is denied, where the proposal failed to comply with numerous proposal preparation instructions, notwithstanding the protester’s characterization of the errors as minor.
Distributed Solutions Inc. protested the Navy’s rejection of its proposal for an electronic procurement system, arguing the agency unreasonably found its proposal nonresponsive to several aspects of the solicitation.
The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation and submission of proposals. The RFP specified that offerors structure their proposals in seven volumes, five of which corresponded to the evaluation criteria and the other two volumes encompassed various administrative materials and required forms. The “Offer/Signed Solicitation Set” required offerors to include miscellaneous solicitation items such as a cover letter, certain standard forms, the completed RFP sections A-K, and the DD Form 254, among other materials.
The RFP cautioned that offerors must comply with the preparation instructions in order to be considered for award and warned that proposals would be rejected as nonresponsive if they did not. When reviewing DSI’s proposal, the agency found that (1) DSI’s SF 33 did not include an original signature, and the firm failed to submit signed copies, or otherwise acknowledge, the RFP’s seven amendments; (2) DSI’s cover letter did not address the firm’s intent to comply with the RFP requirements or address whether the firm took exception to any solicitation terms; (3) DSI’s proposal volume VI did not contain filled-out versions of certain RFP sections and, instead, improperly cross-referenced to information in other proposal volumes (e.g., identifying key personnel); and (4) DSI’s DD Form 254 was not completed fully.
Accordingly, the agency rejected the proposal as nonresponsive. After its agency-level protest was denied, DSI filed with GAO.
DSI argued that the issues cited by the agency were not mistakes, but rather derived from DSI’s reasonable interpretation and compliance with the RFP’s language. To the extent they were mistakes, DSI argued they were minor issues that the agency chose to consider over the substance of its proposal.
However, GAO found no basis to question the agency’s decision, as DSI did indeed fail to comply with several of the clearly stated solicitation requirements. For example, the protester’s cover letter stated that the submission “addresses compliance to all RFP requirements and instructions that include any exceptions to the Terms and Conditions of the solicitation,” but did not state which—if any—exceptions were taken. DSI’s SF 33 also was not signed—in handwriting or using a digital signature—by an authorized representative, even though other areas of the proposal were signed by the CEO in ink. Because the proposal lacked all the required signatures, the CO was concerned that acceptance of the proposal might not have resulted in a binding contract.
While DSI argued these errors were minor, GAO found the solicitation clearly warned offerors that noncompliance with the proposal preparation requirements could result in the rejection of the proposal. Accordingly, GAO found the agency was within its rights to reject the proposal as nonresponsive.
Distributed Solutions Inc. is represented by Lawrence M. Prosen, Gunjan R. Talati, and Nicholas J. Nieto of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. The government is represented by Libbi Finelsen and Agu Onuma, Department of the Navy. GAO attorneys Noah B. Bleicher and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
